Sisti v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently December 1976 · most notably Ford v. Panhandle & Santa Fe Railway Co. (1952), Daugherty v. Montgomery Ward (1967)
5 federal appellate · 35 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Fort Worth & Denver City Railway Co. v. Shetter · Houston & Texas Central Railway Co. v. O'Donnell · 46 Tex. Civ. App. 276 - International & Great Northern Railroad v. Munn · Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Co. v. Reynolds · Caplan v. Arndt
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In a factual situation of this kind, the defendant is entitled to assume that the plaintiff is giving reasonable attention to his surroundings; that one in such a place of peril will obey the instinctive urge of self-preservation to the extent . that he will remove himself from the impending danger. As a consequence, the defendant is liable only when he realizes, or has reason to realize, the inattentiveness of the plaintiff and the position which he occupies. In other words, the defendant has a right to rely upon the fact that the plaintiff will take such steps as are necessary to extricate himself from the perilous position in which he is situated. The text writers are in agreement on this proposition.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * ‘he must show by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) that he was in a perilous position; (2) that the operatives [appellant] had discovered his perilous position; (3) that the operatives had discovered it in time to have prevented the injury, with the means at hand, with-safety to the passengers in the car; and the car as well;- (4) the operatives, after dis covering his peril, had no reason to believe that he could or would free himself from the impending injury’.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Arnold v. Busby“1. That the deceased was in a position of peril; 2. That the defendant discovered or realized the perilous position of the deceased in time to have averted the injury by the use of the means at his command, commensurate with his own safety ; 3. That the defendant thereafter failed to use such means ; 4. That the defendant had no reason to believe that the deceased could or would extricate himself from the position of peril.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.